Updates in answer set programming: An approach based on basic structural properties

Osorio, Mauricio; Cuevas, Víctor

doi:10.1017/s1471068406003000

Cited by 25 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One obstacle is the underlying nonmonotonicity of the semantics of logic programs, which has led to the study of postulates different from the ones in the AGM approach, see e.g. [14,23]. Recently however, specific revision operators based on the monotonic concept of SE-models [28] (which underlies the answer-set semantics of logic programs [21]) have been proposed [12] together with a suitable variant of the AGM postulates; see also [27] for a variant thereof.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics

Delgrande

Peppas

Woltran

2013

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the past few years, several approaches for revision (and update) of logic programs have been studied. None of these however matched the generality and elegance of the original AGM approach to revision in classical logic. One particular obstacle is the underlying nonmonotonicity of the semantics of logic programs. Recently however, specific revision operators based on the monotonic concept of SE-models (which underlies the answer-set semantics of logic programs) have been proposed. Basing revision of logic programs on sets of SEmodels has the drawback that arbitrary sets of SE-models may not necessarily be expressed via a logic program. This situation is similar to the emerging topic of revision in fragments of classical logic. In this paper we show how nonetheless classical AGM-style revision can be extended to various classes of logic programs using the concept of SE-models. That is, we rephrase the AGM postulates in terms of logic programs, provide a semantic construction for revision operators, and then in a representation result show that these approaches coincide. This work is interesting because, on the one hand it shows how the AGM approach can be extended to a seemingly nonmonotonic framework, while on the other hand the formal characterization may provide guiding principles for the development of specific revision operators.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics

Delgrande

Peppas

Woltran

2013

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The important aspect of strong equivalence is that it coincides with equivalence in a specific monotonic logic, the logic of here and there (HT), which is intermediate between intuitionistic logic and classical logic. Moreover, following Osorio and Zacarías [2004] and Osorio and Cuevas [2007], strong equivalence amounts to knowledge equivalence of programs. That is, strong equivalence captures the logical content of a program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since Osorio and Cuevas [2007] studied programs with strong negation, 7 this led them to consider the logic N 2 , an extension of HT by allowing strong negation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Change in Answer Set Programming

Delgrande

Schaub

Tompits

et al. 2013

ACM Trans. Comput. Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We address the problem of belief change in (nonmonotonic) logic programming under answer set semantics. Our formal techniques are analogous to those of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic. In particular, we build upon the model theory of logic programs furnished by SE interpretations, where an SE interpretation is a model of a logic program in the same way that a classical interpretation is a model of a propositional formula. Hence we extend techniques from the area of belief revision based on distance between models to belief change in logic programs.We first consider belief revision: for logic programs P and Q, the goal is to determine a program R that corresponds to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. We investigate several operators, including (logic program) expansion and two revision operators based on the distance between the SE models of logic programs. It proves to be the case that expansion is an interesting operator in its own right, unlike in classical belief revision where it is relatively uninteresting. Expansion and revision are shown to satisfy a suite of interesting properties; in particular, our revision operators satisfy all or nearly all of the AGM postulates for revision.We next consider approaches for merging a set of logic programs, P 1 , . . . , Pn. Again, our formal techniques are based on notions of relative distance between the SE models of the logic programs. Two approaches are examined. The first informally selects for each program P i those models of P i that vary the least from models of the other programs. The second approach informally selects those models of a program P 0 that are closest to the models of programs P 1 , . . . , Pn. In this case, P 0 can be thought of as a set of database integrity constraints. We examine these operators with regards to how they satisfy relevant postulate sets.Last, we present encodings for computing the revision as well as the merging of logic programs within the same logic programming framework. This gives rise to a direct implementation of our approach in terms of off-the-shelf answer set solvers. These encodings also reflect the fact that our change operators do not increase the complexity of the base formalism.

show abstract

“…Then it is useful to apply an update approach that avoids the inconsistency and now allows to infer −a since the newer knowledge has priority over the older. Currently there are several approaches in non-monotonic reasoning dealing with updates, such as [10,16,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is natural to consider the stable semantics since many approaches to updating have been based on it, see for example [10,16,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Schema for Generating Update Semantics

Carranza¹,

Zepeda²,

Flores³

2012

IJACSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, we present a general schema for defining new update semantics. This schema takes as input any basic logic programming semantics, such as the stable semantics, the p-stable semantics or the M M r semantics, and gives as output a new update semantics. The schema proposed is based on a concept called minimal generalized S models, where S is any of the logic programming semantics. Each update semantics is associated to an update operator. We also present some properties of these update operators.

show abstract

Updates in answer set programming: An approach based on basic structural properties

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics

AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics

A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Change in Answer Set Programming

A Schema for Generating Update Semantics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About